Occupiers’ Liability (1957) Flashcards
What is the case of Wheat v Lacon? (occupier)
Control of premises - there can be more than one occupier.
What is the case principle of Harris v Birkenstead? (occupier)
Physical occupation is not required
What is the case principle of Bailey v Armes? (occupier)
It can’t be decided who is in control of the premises, there is no occupier.
What is premises defined as?
‘Any fixed or moveable structure, including any vessel, vehicle or aircraft’.
What is the case principle of London Dock v Horton? (premises)
Ships on a dry dock
What is the case principle of Hartwell v Grayson? (premises)
Vehicles
What is the case principle of Haseldine v Daw & Son Ltd ? (premises)
Lifts
Wheels v Copas?
Ladder
What is a lawful visitor defined as in s2(1)?
Anyone with express or implied permission: invitees; licensees; those with contractual permissions; those with statutory rights of entry.
What is duty towards lawful visitor defined as? s2(2)
Keeping the lawful visitor ‘reasonably safe for the purposes they’re there’, doesn’t have to be compete safety.
What is the principle of Laverton v Kipasha Takeaway?
(Duty towards reasonable visitor)
- judge occupier against the reasonable occupier determining breach.
What is the case of Glasgow Corp v Taylor?
Relating to child, must protect against an allurement
What is the LP in the case of Phipps v Rochester?
Where the child is very young D is entitled to assume they should be accompanied by an adult
In Occupier’s liability, state the stages of a model answer
1) Occupier
2) Premises
3) Lawful Visitor
4) Duty towards lawful visitor
5) Category of the visitor (if relevant)
6) Visitor warned of danger (if relevant)
Explain the model answer for occupier:
The defendant must be classed as an occupier and under 1.1(2) this is someone who has occupation and control (Wheat v Lacon). Here, D is an occupier because… (state how D had physical occupation / control)
If relevant - D does not need physical occupation (Harris v Birkenhead)
Explain the model answer for premises:
The damage must take place on the occupier’s premises. According to s.1(3)(a) as premises is any fixed or moveable structure, including any vessel, vehicle or aircraft. Here, the premises is…
Explain the model answer for duty:
Under s.2(1) of the OLA 1957, the duty applies to lawful visitors: 1) Invitees, 2) Licensees (express or implied), 3) those with contractual permission, 4) those who are given a statutory right. Here, D is a lawful visitor because… (state which type of lawful visitor they are)
Conclude, therefore a duty is/ is not owed to C.
Explain standard of care:
Occupiers have a duty to keep the visitors reasonably safe for the purpose for which they are invited to be there. The danger must be because of the state of the premises. Laverton v Kiapasha Takeaway states occupier has to take steps to keep reasonably safe, not completely safe.
Here, D has kept C reasonably safe because…
Explain the model answer for duty regarding children:
If C is a child, the duty of care will be higher. s.2(3)(a) confirms that occupiers must be prepared for children to take less care than adults therefore the premises must be reasonably safe for a child of that age, it is a subjective standard. Glasgow Corp v Taylor confirms that the occupiers are under duty to protect children from all allurements and attractions that are dangerous and might put them at risk. Warning signs that are sufficient for adults, may not be sufficient for children. Here, the allurement was…
(IF RELEVANT - It is reasonable for an occupier to assume that young children will be accompanied by an adult (Phillips v Rochester). Here, as the child is (state age) it is reasonable for the occupier to expect an adult to be present and therefore may not be liable
Therefore, D may not have breached their duty.
Step 6 model (Warning):
C can avoid duty if the visitor is reasonably warned of the danger. A warning is ineffective unless ‘in all the circumstances it was enough to enable the visitor to be reasonably safe’. Implied / Express. (Rae v Mars). Here, the warning sign was / was not sufficient because…
duty regarding workmen:
b) Tradesmen who injure themselves whilst doing their job– s2(3)(b) – should be aware of the dangers associated with their trade, so D not liable – Roles v Nathan
c) Independent contractors who injure others- s2(4) – will be a defence if:
i. it was reasonable to employ an independent contractor to d the work Haseldine v Daw
ii. The occupier took reasonable steps to ensure the independent contractor was competent – Bottomley v Todmorden
iii. the occupier checked the work was done properly – Woodward v Mayor of Hastings
